The President's Letter

David Adesnik opines on a Daily Kos post suggesting that the President's letter to Congress pursuant to the Iraqi War Resolution was a lie.

To complete the record, we should cite the USA Today story that seems to have triggered this, as linked by Dan Froomkin of the WaPo. And let's note that Tim Noah has picked this letter for his "Whopper" files, so a new lefty meme is born! Another false meme, but falsity seems to be preferred to cognitive dissonance.

Now, offering this letter as proof that Bush lied falls somewhere between a head-scratcher and an "oh, for heaven's sake". Since it was written to Congress in compliance with "section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), it may be worth checking the statute in question. Eventually we will see that the President was expressing a concusion already reached by Congress. We will also pause for a moment to reflect on Congressional intent - this resolution was drafted, essentially, by war supporters. In October 2002, the general consensus was that Saddam was not directly involved with 9/11. So, riddle me this - why would war supporters prepare a resolution that set an impossible threshold for war?

INTERIM UPDATE: Similar analysis here. And Eugene Volokh provides good background.

First, let's look at section 3(b) cited above:

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.

In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

So, the President echoed the text of the resolution in his letter. That would be problematic if the resolution also expressed uncertainly as to whether such a condition obtained. However, we find this in the "Whereas" section of the resolution:

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

...Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

So, Congress had already expressed its determination that a link existed between Al Qaeda and Iraq, based in part on Tenet's letter of Oct 7, 2002.

Now, a bit of a puzzle - twice in the "Whereas" section the phrase "or harbored such persons or organizations" follows the bit about "nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001". The "harbored" qualification would have been the reason we attacked the Taliban, for example, and we find that clause in the relevant Afghanistan resolution, so one might reasonably expect that qualifier to have appeared in Section 3(b) of the Presidential determination. If it did, this letter would be even less troublesome.

Well, the qualifier is not there. On the one hand, it's hard to believe this is simply an oversight. It's also hard to believe I am going to re-read the entire Congressional debate looking for clues to an answer. Consequently, I will press on to my conclusion, which is that Bush and Congress seemed to have, in Kos-world, lied to each other. Back in reality, Congressional supporters of the war resolution were quite clear that, although Saddam was not linked to 9/11, he remained a threat to the US. Since the general consensus in October 2002 was that Saddam was not directly involved with 9/11, I find it incomprehensible that Congress would pass a resolution requiring the President to certify that he was - why would war supporters, who were driving the debate, do that?

The alternative explanation, that the deeper meaning of the Presidential determination is caught up in the various clauses, makes more sense.

Comments

[Ignatius Byrd]

This is great stuff on how we need to be careful about assumptions and assigning motives when it comes to government statements and behavior, but it's not necessary if all you want to do is debunk the "Whopper" piece.

It's wrong on its face. Bush's statement explicitly reaches further than the 9/11 perpetrators and the Whopper piece is interpreting that statement to be limited to the 9/11 conspirators. It's not just lazyness, it's flat out lying.

Recently, an interesting idea was floating around the net that I think makes a lot of sense--the left-wing Bush critics' insistence that Bush is a liar is primarily an attempt to innoculate themselves against accusations of lying--of which they do plenty.

[Fletcher]

Adesnick should be sent to Darfur for a few weeks, so he will understand the nature of a true outrage. I doubt if he is "up" for that.

[Jon Cast]

The resolution and Bush's finding both say `consistent with'. Not `implied by'. Why would Bush here not simply be saying he has considered the argument that you can't go after Saddam and Bin Laden simultaneously, and rejected it?

[Bill]

Indeed, I'm pretty sure everybody at the time understood exactly what it meant, which is that it is possible to go after the perpetrators of 9/11 and Iraq at the same time, nothing more. If the White House was arguing that Saddam was responsible for 9/11, the whole public debate at the time would have been about that, since, if he was, the decision to invade Iraq would have been automatic. However, some of us do actually remember what was going on at the time, and the debate was clearly about WMD's, degrees of immanence, containment, preemption, spreading democracy, human rights, etc.

Ah, but now it's time to move the goalposts, so we can just forget about that.

[Soul]

apparently, if the republican controlled congress agrees with the republican president says (which he requested that they do, so in reality bush was agreeing with the Republican congress agreeing with him. Imagine that) it absolves both parties of all responsibility for what they say. it's Republogic :>

[BradDad]

You can read, right, Soul?

Then read - and discover the language in question was inserted at the request of Dick Gephardt, who wanted a representation that Iraq would not detract from the overall war.

Such a representation is, of course, a matter of opinion because it pertains to future events which cannot be predicted.

Given Saddam's past and the crumbling sanctions regime, leaving Saddam alone in Iraq would have eventually resulted in the lifting of sanctions & the resumption of Saddam's terror weapon programs.

In a post 9/11 world, the potential that he'd supply them to al Qaeda or some similar organization for use against our interests is far too high to accept.

Which, by the way, has been the concern from the start.

[cwgeog]

Soul:
Additionally in May 02 congress was split. The Senate was controlled by Democrats.